the British and French, and/or 3) JohnnFoster Dulles raced through Eveland’snhead. He concluded that the U.S. hadnno business interfering in Syrian politics.nWhat he did not realize was thatnthe situation in Syria, from the standpointnof the moderates, had become insufferable.nHistorian Nabil M. Kaylaninwrites of this period that the country,n”traditional at heart, was being radicalizednby a determined leftist minority.”nOf Marxian BondagenSidney Lens: Unrepentant Radical:nAn American Activist’s Account ofnFive Turbulent Decades; BeaconnPress; Boston.nby Clarence B. CarsonnN o latter-day Lincoln has ever comenforth to proclaim the emancipation ofnintellectuals. Probably none has perceivednthe necessity. Certainly, few intellectualsnare aware of the need; theyntend to view themselves as that portionnof the population most completely emancipated.nWhen were they emancipated.”nIf Western intellectuals were to reflectnupon this question, they would probablynarrive at the answer that it occurredngradually during the course of the 17th,n18th and 19th centuries. It came in thenwake of the Protestant revolt and thendecline of religious authority. Prior tonthat time, being an intellectual wasnlargely a church vocation. Most intellectualsnwere priests and monks; theyncomprised that portion of the populationnmost apt to be able to read and writenand have the leisure for contemplation.nMore broadly, the clergy were usuallynthe best educated, did the teaching andnpossessed skills in verbal communications.nThe clergy as intellectuals, however,nwere generally subject to the disci-nDr. Carson’s latest book is The Worldnin the Grip of an Idea.n28inChronicles of CulturenUnder those circumstances the U.S.nwould have been remiss not to have offerednhelp to a friendly majority tryingnto resist subversion, but a poorly organizedncoup was worse than no actionnat all.nWe can thank Eveland for helpingnto explain America’s failure in thenMiddle East: it came from sending boysnto do men’s work. Dnpline of churches and congregations.nThus, what intellectuals, on reflection,nwould be likely to think is that theirnemancipation came as the power of thenchurches was broken, as many functionsnformerly provided by the clergy werensecularized, and as freedom of speechnand of the press was established.nThere is, however, more than onenkind of bondage. There is bondage ofnthe spirit, bondage of the mind andnbondage of the body. Within the pastncentury, many intellectuals have comenunder ideological bondage. (Many ofnthem have even come to believe thatnany coherent system of thought is annideology. )The most common ideologicalnbondage is to Marxism. It is a bondagenof the mind and spirit which, whennMarxists come to power, is translatedninto physical bondage for those withinnits realm.nSidney Lens has spent his adult lifenin bondage to Marxism. Much of thentime he was a Trotskyite, which meantnthat during the Stalin years he favorednworld revolution rather than revolutionnin one country. Lens has been, successively,na labor organizer, a minor labornleader, a “peacenik” and a journalist.nHe was hardly trained as an intellectual,nnever even went to college, but he madenup for it over the years by mastering thenart of propaganda and by becoming anprolific writer of articles and books.nEventually, writing became his mainnnnactivity.nThere is no evidence in this autobiographynthat Lens is aware of his bondagento ideology. He has not, as the titlenpoints out, repented for his five decadesnof radicalism. The only significantnchange in his thinking is that he nonlonger generally favors violent revolution,nthough we are never apprised ofnthe extent to which he ever did. He isnnow more of an evolutionaiy than anrevolutionary socialist. He sums up hisnposition this way:nA revolution in stages is desirable, ifnit is possible, because there is a minimumnof bloodshed and political powernremains dispersed. In a violent revolutionnthere is a tendency for suchnpower to be centralized in a singlenperson or a small group; that is thenkind of situation that lends itself tonauthoritarianism, whether in a capitalistnor a socialist society. It becomesnvery difficult for a leader under thesencircumstances to disgorge himself ofnthe total power in his hands; only anfew socialist leaders have had moderatensuccess in that regard. It is muchnbetter for revolution to proceed innstages, and I think that it is possiblenin the United States and Western Europentoday.nK he were vouchsafed five more decadesnof experience with radicalism, Ms. Lensnmight discover that the concentrationnof power is not simply a consequence ofnrevolution, but rather a complex consequencenof socialist ideology. But Inwouldn’t bet on it. A man who took fivendecades to get from Karl Marx to EduardnBernstein would probably require a millenniumnto discover the fallacies innsocialism.nIt could be argued that Mr. Lens hasnnot been in mental and spiritual bondage,nthat since he is an American, henis free to choose socialism or not.nHaving freely chosen socialism, it mightnbe further argued, he is not thereforenin bondage to it. It does not follow, however,nthat because one has chosen hisncourse that he is thereafter free. Somenwho have been in prison are said to pre-n